# What is "paranormal"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 17, 2004, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607 "2004-10-17T01:28:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/41 "2004-10-18T08:26:22Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Well, it’s unclear to me what your statement means, but I don’t think rejecting a complex unproven explanation when adequate simple proven explanations exist qualifies as resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance. The “flaw” is in how you claim to perceive reaction to paranormal ideas. It is _not_ true that a negative reaction proves the existence of resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance. You claim that it does is what causes me to roll my eyes and hold your misuse of logic (as well as a self-serving martyr complex i.e. “I’m being victimized, therefore there is some truth in what I am saying”) in contempt. I think you’re arguing with the wrong person here. This doesn’t seem to follow any dialog we’ve had. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/42 "2004-10-18T08:36:34Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Well, in that case, the word “paranormal” has no place in a thread titled “Can ghosts be scientifically proved to exist?” which suggests a search for objective evidence “about the thing”. You can’t have it both ways, where “paranormal” applies to science when science is wrong, and to psychology when science is right. I don’t want it both ways. I think “paranormal” is a term that carries virtually no information at all. Hence, it is unneeded. Arguments about what the term _ought_ to mean are a good indication it means nothing in the first place. If you want to know what it _does_ mean currently, however, **Peter Morris** was on the right track. A bunch of phenomena having nothing to do with each other are lumped together as if they have something in common. Whether bigfoot exists is a question for zoologists. Whether psi exists is a questions for psychologists, neurologists, physicists, etc. Cold fusion is a matter for phsicists to investigate. The only common thread is that people claim the phenomena are true and people of influence in the scientific community doubt that they are true (in varying numbers and with varying degrees of intensity). In short, “paranormal” is a pejorative term. Then again, people who investigate the paranormal also use it, sometimes with enthusiasm. So I guess the situation could be termed complete chaos, with everyone involved getting something different out of using the term, and some like myself getting nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/43 "2004-10-18T08:36:45Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I think you’re arguing with the wrong person here. This doesn’t seem to follow any dialog we’ve had. I know; the original dialog was with SnakeSpirit and I will admit I made the assumption that your “Four down, one to go” statement (as well as your other posts in this thread) was more in support of his views than mine. In any case, nothing _you’ve_ said in this thread inspires resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance in me, but some of your statements easily qualify for eye-rolling contempt. Now, it’s possible I have misinterpreted your rather cryptic “Four down” statement. I request a clarification. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/44 "2004-10-18T08:49:59Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I think “paranormal” is a term that carries virtually no information at all. Hence, it is unneeded. Arguments about what the term _ought_ to mean are a good indication it means nothing in the first place. > > If you want to know what it _does_ mean currently, however, **Peter Morris** was on the right track. A bunch of phenomena having nothing to do with each other are lumped together as if they have something in common. Whether bigfoot exists is a question for zoologists. Whether psi exists is a questions for psychologists, neurologists, physicists, etc. Cold fusion is a matter for phsicists to investigate. The only common thread is that people claim the phenomena are true and people of influence in the scientific community doubt that they are true (in varying numbers and with varying degrees of intensity). > > In short, “paranormal” is a pejorative term. Then again, people who investigate the paranormal also use it, sometimes with enthusiasm. So I guess the situation could be termed complete chaos, with everyone involved getting something different out of using the term, and some like myself getting nothing. I’ll fully agree with you on almost every point, with the largest exception being the part about Peter Morris being on the right track. He’s mixing in an unfortunate paranoia (and a truly bizarre fixation on James Randi) to come up with the notion that doubt consitutes proof, and presumably the greater the amount of doubt, the stronger the proof. I don’t think I’d ever consider cold fusion as “paranormal,” though. When Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann made their (wildly premature, it turned out) announcement in 1989, they added theories on the mechanism of cold fusion. In constrast, claims involving ghosts or dowsing or the powers of crystals or other psychic phenomena are rarely if ever accompanied by even an attempt at plausible explanation, because if something measurable were involved, like electromagnetism or whatnot, it should be fairly easy to test for. It is the claim without provable explanation that cries “paranormal” to me and yes, it is a pejorative term. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/45 "2004-10-18T08:52:59Z")
All good points so far. From my reading of the thread the definition for debate is this: **Paranormal** - _A demonstrable ability or phenomenon which cannot be explained by the current scientific paradigm._ This is useful enough in many situations but here we are, like good scientists, specifically trying to _falsify_ it by considering certain cases, such as medical treatments or meteorites, which I would simply label _erroneous hypotheses_ which were subsequently easily falsified themselves. Heck, right now we could just appeal to **black holes, quantum entanglement** or even certain aspects of **consciousness itself** to satisfy that definition. A paranormal phenomenon or ability is not simply an “interesting” or “poorly understood” one. Something must surely be added to the definition. And so I would strengthen the definition thus: **Paranormal** - _A **clearly** demonstrable ability or phenomenon which the current scientific paradigm asserts **cannot** happen._ We must therefore have some justification for considering that this ability or phenomenon runs _counter to_ the current consensus rather than simply being an example of where science is currently _uncertain_. It must be an example of the current laws of physics (_ie._ those laws which have undergone a rigorous test of falsifiability and are based on criteria such as results which show [significance at 1%](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance)) being _broken_ rather than hypothesised laws in some or other “cutting edge” discipline. In this way I would also suggest that historical wrong guesses do not conform to such a definition, since they did_not_ undergo rigorous testing and were based on a far lower “quality threshold” results-wise. Finally, the word “ **clearly** ” aids us in finding genuine abilities or phenomenon which contravene the current paradigm: it must peek above the statistical noise just like any of those results which form the basis of the _current_ paradigm. If, after years of testing, somebody shows an ability to call a coin-flip correctly 50.0001% of the time, is this really so Earth-shattering? One could surely chase such shadows for centuries: the non-existence of paranormal abilities is a reasonable [null hypothesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis) to begin from. Any thoughts? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/46 "2004-10-18T08:55:03Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > I know; the original dialog was with SnakeSpirit and I will admit I made the assumption that your “Four down, one to go” statement (as well as your other posts in this thread) was more in support of his views than mine. In any case, nothing _you’ve_ said in this thread inspires resistance, insecurity, fear or belligerance in me, but some of your statements easily qualify for eye-rolling contempt. My statements? I’ve hardly posted in this thread yet. [/quote] Now, it’s possible I have misinterpreted your rather cryptic “Four down” statement. I request a clarification. [/QUOTE] Get rid of the eye-rolling contempt and you’ll be stronger. But contempt can also be a fun emotion to experience, in which we feel better than others. Still, it is not virtuous to feel so. I find the pyschology of the skeptics curious. As though they were the last bastion against the irrational: every last sin of belief must be prevented or punished, lest we revert to a past species-wide psychosis. This is odd in that most people, from the skeptics’ perspective, are _not_ rational: the religious, those who believe in “paranormal” phenomena, etc. Even a sizable percentage of respected physicists and other hard-core types (7% IIRC) believe in God: that is, they have faith, the most irrational behavior of all. I have my beliefs and belive, of course, that they are best. I don’t believe in a monotheistic God and feel that Catholocism is basically a bunch of tripe (I was raised Catholic, i.e., tortured Catholic-wise in my youth). I think priests are weird in that they deny their sexuality or practice it and lie about it. But I went to a Catholic college and was taught by brilliant Jesuit priests all kinds of great things. They were the farthest thing from “idiot” I can imagine, and the last thing I would do is sneer at them in the way that the skeptics in these threads sneer at (=eye-rolling contempt, etc.) the believers that participate here, and those who do not. What’s up with that? I really don’t understand the contumely. It seems to spring from thinking that those who don’t agree with you 100% are worthy of “eye-rolling contempt.” ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/47 "2004-10-18T09:16:18Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Get rid of the eye-rolling contempt and you’ll be stronger. But contempt can also be a fun emotion to experience, in which we feel better than others. Still, it is not virtuous to feel so. Okaaaaaay, care to explain in what way I will be “stronger” or more “virtuous”? > [@](#): > > I find the pyschology of the skeptics curious… What follows is a gross generalization about skeptics. I don’t recognize any valid descriptions of me personally in it, so it doesn’t compel me to respond. Not being Catholic or Christian, I’ll withold comment on that part, too. > [@](#): > > What’s up with that? I really don’t understand the contumely. It seems to spring from thinking that those who don’t agree with you 100% are worthy of “eye-rolling contempt.” I’ll admit that I had to look up “contumely”, so I’ve actually learned something new from this thread, even if I don’t agree that anything I’ve said in this thread even remotely approaches a lie. And it’s your statements that prompt my contempt, not some trivial variation from me in your opinions. I casually post to numerous other threads and discuss things with people who disagree with me, but they only get eye-roling contempt when they say things that are patently absurd (if not outright insulting to my intelligence), and not just in simple disagreement. You can’t shift the burden to me so easily by trying to make me look intolerant, and even if you could _this does not constitute support for anything you have said_. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/48 "2004-10-18T10:17:32Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Okaaaaaay, care to explain in what way I will be “stronger” or more “virtuous”? You will seem steadier and surer. Magnanimous. Mature. Adult. It is the teenager or person in his/her early 20s that usually thinks s/he’s got the world figured out and anyone who disagrees is wrong and dangerous. As one matures, one sees that the world is full of ambiguity, dim corners, and seeming contradictions. Also, the true adult realizes that a point of view is better transmitted through a kind, tolerant approach, rather than a mocking, condescending approach. This is why Randi seems immature to those who don’t agree with him. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/49 "2004-10-18T10:27:43Z")
> [@](#): > > a point of view is better transmitted through a kind, tolerant approach, rather than a mocking, condescending approach. This is why Randi seems immature to those who don’t agree with him. This approach will also get a kind, tolerant person a new arsehole torn on television by people whose livelihoods depend on suppressing all discussion of what constitutes a fair cheatproof and luckproof test of their claimed abilities. His books and lectures are rather more rigorous and reasonable (even if he is arguably _wrong_ in a few details) - I’d suggest these are better guides than his appearances on Letterman and the like, where he must fight blatant showmanship with the same. ---
**Author:** ![t-keela](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a3d4f5/32.png) [@t-keela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/t-keela)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/50 "2004-10-18T10:49:17Z")
Hey guys, I’m just curious which one of you it was that used to frequent “Randi’s” website and got into a big ass debate with him about divining rods? I don’t post or even visit other boards. I found this one first and figured, why bother? I’ve read (lurked) a bit on other message boards and found them ALL to be pretty biased or the staff just really sucked, so I said f~it and stayed home. ANYWAY…who was it? I think I know but I’m not gonna mistakenly claim somebody that it wasn’t. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/51 "2004-10-18T10:55:01Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m just curious which one of you it was that used to frequent “Randi’s” website and got into a big ass debate with him about divining rods? That would be **Peter**. He still rather [obsesses about that subject](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5361676&postcount=16). ---
**Author:** ![t-keela](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a3d4f5/32.png) [@t-keela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/t-keela)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/52 "2004-10-18T11:00:50Z")
You sure? I was thing Roger… but hey man, I ain’t really doubting you. I just had somebody else in mind. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/53 "2004-10-18T13:12:20Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#): > > I’d like that, but I just see too many pseudo-skeptics saying they are sceptics but in actuality they are cynics and “naysayers.” > > Gee, we can really have fun with spelling: > > sceptics = suspend judgement on the unproven. > skeptics = think they’re sceptics but tend toward cynicism. > skeptiks = deluded cynics who want to be sceptics but can’t, cause they reject it all > pseudo-skeptics = pretend to be sceptics, but function as cynics. > sckepticks = not only bad, but _EVIL!_ sKKKeptic - Randi fan. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/54 "2004-10-18T13:34:09Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > All good points so far. From my reading of the thread the definition for debate is this: > > And so I would strengthen the definition thus: > > **Paranormal** - _A **clearly** demonstrable ability or phenomenon which the current scientific paradigm asserts **cannot** happen._ I think that’s the best definition I’ve heard. By that definition: In Lavoisier’s day, the current scientific paradigm asserted that meteorites **could not** happen. So, \*at the time \* they were paranormal. Today, the current scientific paradigm asserts that meteorites \*\*can \*\* happen (and do). So today, they are _not_ paranormal. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/55 "2004-10-18T13:39:30Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#): > > ESP may be nothing more than a radio-wave type transmission from one bioelectrical computer (brain) to another. If so, it operates within the laws of physics. One of the characteristics of ESP seems to be that action at a distance is just as strong as action close by. I know of no well-established scientific phenomena that shares this characteristic. From gravity to magnetism to light, the force diminishes with the distance. ESP, as generally defined, violates this law of physics. > [@](#): > > Interesting that Uri Geller scored hits when someone who knew the right answers was in his presence, but he scored no hits when isolated by a faraday cage. You have just changed at least two parameters at once. Changing more than one at a time makes it impossible to tell which one is the influencing factor. From your statement, we cannot draw any useful conclusion except the example is fatally flawed. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/56 "2004-10-18T13:48:47Z")
> [@](#): > > In Lavoisier’s day, the current scientific paradigm asserted that meteorites could not happen. So, at the time they were paranormal. Well, my suggestion was also to focus on the word “scientific” (_ie._ subject to rigorous tests of falsifiability based on results showing significance at 1% and the like). By that reading, the paradigm was not really “scientific” since nobody was trying very hard to falsify it, and it was based on rather baseless conjecture rather than good, solid results. This is why I suggested that “cutting edge” science was not really relevant to a discussion of the “paranormal”, since the paranormal is rather more about what the **established, rigorously falsified** paradigm says cannot happen rather than the hypothesised “educated guess” in _eg._ cosmology journals. Science has tried as hard as it can for _centuries_ to come up with candidates: I’d strongly recommend the autobiography of [Susan Blackmore](http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/) as an example of a lifelong career of trying _really really hard_ to find something, _anything_, to get her a Nobel Prize in physics. How many careers like hers must end in failure before we conclude that our null hypothesis should not be discarded? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/57 "2004-10-18T14:22:45Z")
I’m willing to stipulate that meteorites were paranormal at one time; indeed, it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that other phenomena currently considered paranormal will at some point be proven otherwise. However, and especially for phenomena that have undergone strict testing, there is a strong case for skepticism. I do not believe in telepathy, in psychokinesis, in clairvoyance, in precognition, in spiritualism. These phenomena have all undergone strenuous testing, by scientists who would dearly love to see the phenomena be real; nobody has been able to come up with a way to demonstrate them reliably. Compare this to other areas of science. Folks who study quasars have come up with ways to observe them reliably. People who discover new species can show them off reliably. Meteorologists can test their predictions against weather patterns, and show themselves to be reliably accurate. Chemists create new chemicals with reliable properties. Paranormalists, however, are so far outside of this tradition that they’re almost something else entirely. The only paranormalists who are within the scientific tradition–who can demonstrate anything reliably–are the ones who can demonstrate, reliably, under controlled conditions, that paranormal claims are **not** coming true. It’s worth considering that spiritualism was also considered paranormal 200 years ago, as was telepathy, psychokinesis, clairvoyance, precognition. It’s extremely rare for a claim to progress from paranormal to normal, and with good reason: the laws of physics, while not perfect, are pretty darn good, and it’s rare for there to be major flaws in them at a level dealt with by humans on a regular basis. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/58 "2004-10-18T15:03:33Z")
[QUOTE] > [@SnakeSpirit](#): > > Nonsense! ESP _can_ exist within the laws of physics, it has not been shown to be outside or within the laws. Has it in fact been shown to be anything at all? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/59 "2004-10-18T20:05:49Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > In Lavoisier’s day, the current scientific paradigm asserted that meteorites **could not** happen. So, \*at the time \* they were paranormal. As others have pointed out, there’s a big difference between a statement that many scientists, even prominent scientists, _believe_ to be true, and a statement that has been thoroughly tested. For instance, most scientists do not believe that the Yeti exists. The Yeti is often lumped in with various paranormal claims. And yet if an expedition went into the himalayas, captured a yeti, and brought it back, everyone would happily change their minds, the primate-specialists would study that Yeti like there was no tomorrow, and no one would be particularly embarassed, nor have reason to be. Individual characteristics of the Yeti might shatter orthodoxy… for instance, someone might have published a paper arguing that no primate could be over 8 feet tall due to bone configurations, and if the Yeti was over 8 feet tall, that person would be proven wrong. But the Yeti does not (assuming he’s just a big non-supernatural ape) Violate The Laws Of Science. The Yeti is not “paranormal” in any meaningful sense. On the other hand, a strongly held belief of modern science is that genetic information is passed from generation to generation through DNA. That is something that has been tested, studied, used to detect disease, etc. If it turns out that genetic information is passed via K-rays, and DNA is irrelevant to the process, that would be a HUGE blow to the reputation of science, as a process. That really _would_ be an example that future generations could use to point out that science can be wrong about just about anything. And in the middle, somewhere, are things like ESP and dowsing. Any rational skeptic will not say “ESP has been 100% proven to not exist”. Rather, they’ll say “repeated testing has failed to demonstrate the existence of ESP, and as extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, I find its existence very unlikely”. If ESP finally _is_ proven to exist, that will obviously be a lot of egg on the face of science, but that’s not Breaking any Laws of Science, per se. It’s not like Newton’s 4th law states “ESP does not exist”. My point being, whatever the hell Lavoisier said about meteors, it was a lot more like Yeti and a lot less like ESP, and even less like genetic K-rays. A “law of science” is not something that Lavoisier says or believes, or even something that most of the leading scientists say and believe. It’s something that has been tested, retested, studied, analyzed, and something which has a foundation of good, solid, reproducible results built up on top of it. Lavoisier and his contemporaries may all have believed that meteorites didn’t exist, much as modern scientists typically believe that ESP doesn’t exist. But (and I’m repeating myself here), the existence of ESP doesn’t Violate the Laws of Science (unless ESP-speed communication is faster than the speed of light). ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2004, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607/60 "2004-10-18T20:08:32Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Uh, call me a sceptic/skeptic/pseudo-skeptic/cynic/naysayer if you must, but let’s _not_ have fun with spelling, okay? Creative labeling is a superficial tactic and does absolutely nothing to help your claims, which remain unproven. What claims? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paranormal/269607.md?page=4)